Do we just get what we deserve?

The Economist asks “Which Boris would Britain get?” in this article. 

 https://www.economist.com/leaders/2019/06/20/which-boris-would-britain-get?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/ed/whichboriswouldbritaingettheconservativeleadership

It argues that a lack of guiding philosophy is central to (his) success.

It seems unpredictability is fashionable for political leadership these days eh? His style and personality is regularly likened to that of Mr Trump . See what “qualities” the Economist suggest “the two blond bombshells” share.

That his words can mean almost nothing (you can infer that to mean either Boris or Donald) is possibly taken by both sides as a sign that he might eventually do what they hope, regardless of what he has promised in the past. I think it’s the optimistic bias of reasonably minded folk at work. If so I fear it’s misguided optimism. So how did we come to this? 

Granted this particular leadership contest is being played out within a one party political class ( a divided party) rather than the people. But generally I’m wondering if we actually just get the political leaders we deserve. Has politics bar-belled the people (along pretty much any big decision or issue) or have the people bar-belled politics ?

I’d generally like to think it’s the former because if “en masse” we have lost the appetite for centrist debate , collaboration and compromise in everyday life and everyday business then perhaps we only get what we deserve. Politicians who tell hard truths don’t get elected or if in office get ejected. Instead we are prepared to bypass the detail to buy the vision , whether realistic and grounded in fact or more often not. So do we have a low opinion of politics because we have a higher opinion of ourselves than our actions merit? 

 I want to make the aspirational case for the purpose of business playing a bigger role in social conscience and societal harmony. My business experience has changed over the years , and for the better, where values and good governance and collaboration outside of the employer brand (but within the boundaries of competition law) are getting stronger at the same time as political values and political governance seems to be getting weaker. 

 Could capitalist commercial business activity actually become the place to demonstrate the value of debate , collaboration and compromise above democratic politics? Some businesses are arguably now more powerful than some State actors. Could there be an optimistic interpretation of that? Or is it only a dark development? 

 On the street , I fear it is the people who have lost trust in expertise , institutions and 'big business' that has divided the politics and so we get the political leaders we deserve. Can 'big business' , historically grounded in pure self centred profit motives , really emerge as our model for social purpose ?! ( see also my articles “Demonstrating Vision” and “A Dedicated Follower of Fashion” )

It’s not an easy path though. I grew up in the comparatively innocent times of late 20th century where we believed that democracy and capitalism could be soul mates. Both shared the philosophical roots of freedom and choice (this is not a pensions thought piece!) and both in theory make the leaders subservient to the people or to the market etc. We debate and test ideas - with the people and/or with the market and nudge towards the acceptable common ground. This maybe inefficiently oscillates and recalibrates a bit along the way but that’s how discovery works best. Politics was there for social good and business was there for its own good. 

 This combined approach did mean rejecting what was absolutely unacceptable to significant minorities of the 48% (or much less) variety along the way. It avoided precipice decision making and has been a tried and tested recipe for progress and for growth. 

 Turning to a divergent thought to possibly threaten the conviction in the model. The rise of China following a different model is making some academics reopen text books that were closed a long time ago. You know the ones that concluded a democratic capitalist model wins hands down and so the best system is not even open to debate anymore - that ship sailed long ago. 

 However China has powered forward impressively yet has some importantly different ingredients that should ring alarm bells. No free press , no rule of law , no competing political parties for leadership (president Xi is assured) and an historically terrible respect for human rights. At the same time I admire the stability of their strategic plan even though I wouldn’t ever want to swap our system for that! 

However in my day job I would not hesitate to make the case for globally minded investors with a long term view to allocate capital to the opportunities opening up to foreign investors in the Chinese economy. There’s investment returns to be made. Does that make me a hypocrite? I hope not. 

 Back at home , something like Brexit perhaps makes some of us question our fundamental system that instead of democracy and capitalism being best buddies they find themselves at odds. Intelligent folk can find themselves painted into some interesting corners. As this economist article reports “ . A poll this week found that large majorities would leave the EU even if it did “significant damage” to the economy, broke apart the union with Scotland and Northern Ireland or “destroyed” the Conservative Party itself. Oh OK , it must really matter then. 

 Being divided and fractious is fashionable, even in in the most long lived of institutions perhaps - did I see Wills and Harry agreeing to disband their Royal Foundation this week?

But I do want to turn my wide-ranging and admittedly poorly focused “thought share” to the subject most often on my mind currently and draw the parallel to the groundwork I set out above. 

 Sometimes we need Government to get us to pay for things that individually we would not. If we would , then we would not need Government. Climate change challenges , notably carbon transition, sits in that box for me. Many folk will agree that climate change is a priority , but fewer will agree to pay for the consequences of that themselves ahead of what many may see as more immediate concerns. It’s Gen Z that rightly called it an emergency but they are also less distracted by other social intractables. 

So I feel sure this is one for the financial community to lead on and get some prestige back to finance professions (eg Banks) that have taken a (usually misguided) PR battering since the Great Financial Crisis. 

 I was fortunate enough to be invited to a Bank of England PRA roundtable yesterday alongside senior representatives from the policy makers , insurance and accounting professions. It’s one of very many connected initiatives and when you consider the whole I am deeply impressed with how the financial chain is coming together to treat this with the great seriousness it deserves. Of course there are some barriers and some scepticism to overcome , but surely proper tangible progress is being made to recognise and tackle these (faster than you think) emerging risks. 

In summary I do not want to or expect to choose between democracy and capitalism , I thought they went together. However voters need to understand and at least have the impression that they can control their elected (or sometimes unelected but coronated) leaders. 

We must also think these leaders share a sense of common societal values - but when such values seem terminally fractured then what is common values? When leaders like Trump and Johnson emerge triumphant I can only think the case for some supra governing body thinking strategically around intractable challenges like environmental impact and social inequality issues becomes even stronger. If it’s not the EU and surely not the China model then what will it be that the people can trust to do the stuff that individually we find hard to tick a box on voting slips for - ie self sacrifice for the common good? 

Could powerful big business (always the suspected actor of yesteryear) actually and collaboratively fill that void for a common good? 

 John Belgrove - Aon , 22/6/19